Journal of Parapsychology

In discussing some of the conceptual and methodological problems experienced by parapsychologists, it is argued that while these professionals are convinced of the reality of psi, a basic issue in the field, many publications simply ignore its existence, and researchers conduct duplicate experiments to verify its existence. Such research has risks, it is argued, one of which is a break in the historical continuity of the investigations; the emphasis on a fresh discovery tends to undermine the value of previous findings by implying that in some sense the present research is superior to that done before. The available literature is reviewed, and it is suggested that (a) there is a lot more evidence of psi than is necessary for belief in its existence; (b) during the century of inquiry, many techniques have been developed to study psi and several concepts have been proposed to understand it; and (c) in spite of repeated attempts to explain psi, individuals still hardly know what it is and only rarely recognize it even when it is present.

Two well-known parapsychological concepts (random behavior vs. nonrandom behavior responses and low-bias vs. high-bias responses) suggested that a similar dichotomy might be found between the unstructured (unorganized) and structured (organized) material produced by a group of sitters in a seance using a Ouija board. Two seances were held during which the subjects were engaged in a covert precognitive psi task. It was hypothesized that there would be a difference between the scoring rates of the unstructured and structured responses. Transcripts of the seance material were encoded into binary form using a simple coding scheme, and the verbal material was also separated into structured and unstructured response categories. The coded transcripts were then compared with binary random digits taken from the Rand Corporation tables, and correspondences between seance material and targets were scored. In the first study, in which five subjects completed 1,563 trials, it was found that scoring was higher on unstructured than on structured responses (p<.05). In a confirmatory study it was predicted that the unstructured responses would show significantly higher scoring than the structured responses. Nine subjects carried out 1,146 trials, which replicated the finding of the first study. The difference between the two types of response categories was significant at the level of p<.005. The possibility that artifacts might have contaminated the results was considered. Accordingly the data were analyzed for inclines or declines in scoring which might have affected the results. No such evidence was found. Since the experimenter knew the hypotheses under test and was often present at the seance, the possibility of an experimenter effect was also examined. It was found that significantly different scoring rates on structured and unstructured responses were observed only when the experimenter was absent from the seance circle. The similarities and differences of the three response dichotomies (RBT/NRBT, HBT/LBT, and the unstructured/structured responses) are discussed and the need for further empirical research is stressed.

Examines several theories and models of psi and argues that while none is entirely satisfactory in explaining psi each seems to contain some fruitful ideas. Investigations of the «physical» hypotheses directed toward finding a new medium of psi communication will likely reveal the limiting conditions of psi. The «nonphysical» hypotheses are likely to be the ones that will provide insights into the psychological processes involved in psi cognitions. Acausal hypotheses have the merit of questioning some of the classical assumptions concerning S–target relationships. More than any others, the acausal hypotheses show the basic inappropriateness of the stimulus–response model of psi.

Scientists interested enough to examine the evidence for ESP tend to find it either convincing or worthless. This polarization of judgment is explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. After a review of 16 arguments used by scientists for rejecting ESP, the mental conflict is modeled as arising from a discrepancy between a subjective antecedent probability (SAP) of ESP, reflecting indirect evidence for the phenomenon, and a subjective counter-explanatory probability (SCEP), derived from the direct evidence. Possible relationships of SCEP and SAP are considered for intellectuals vs. nonintellectuals and for laymen vs. scientists. A survey of the membership of the Parapsychological Association reveals that even parapsychologists suffer doubt and conflict concerning the reality of ESP.